gossipgirlfandomcom-20200222-history
User blog:Uncle Jackass/Trying to 'Win' a Debate using Reasoning
I'm going to do my best attempt at being a grown up adult. In particular the discussion about debating about Chair Vs. Dair seems to keep getting repetitive and pointless in a cyclic fashion. Whether you're a sceptic for a future with Dair because it's perceived as contrived or analogous to Climate Change, it does seem to polarise a fandom community of opinions. These are views that JS stated previously in an interview. And I think the remaining viewers of GG are best not judged or compartmentalised in one single classification. The real problem it seems is trying 'win' the debate on an argument using reasoning and logic which seems to result in absolutions and endless declarations. Thus, the result = no result. Such is this cyclic fashion of returning, reaffirming or re-enforcing one's views. Perhaps this confirms what we already know about human nature. No one ship wants to give ground or compromise to reach an impasse. i.e. believing 100% in one ship is a useless endeavour. Screaming at an Iceberg won't stop the ship from sinking and it is better to 'jump boat' as quickly as possible as a metaphor. It is with this logic that one must argue that it is the Faulty premise or reasoning that is core of the problem of the Chair vs Dair debate. A Vulcan would be proud. This methodology of adopting a scientific method is engrained in the systems that most people seem to be susceptible towards; given that we follow consensus as a society. Therefore, we believe that if one party screams loud enough it will be heard the loudest and override another party. But at the same time we must realize that we all have an agenda behind all our reasoning. i.e. we want our ship to win. The subconscious stance that conflicts with the conscious viewpoint. And the only truth is that we already have a firm stance to begin with. Everything else are just layers and layers of lies, as Dr. Gregory House would state. Conclusions are drawn from beginning and we continue with a stance to the end. The side that argues with logic tries their best to discredit the other side using evidence base research which reciprocally responses on death's ears. I have been told from academics that the best attempt to argue a point is to find the balance in connecting with the party's other core beliefs and from there discuss or validate your points. The problem lies that whether those foundation views are sincerely believed or copied/paste as a pretence on the attacking front. Well, does that imply that there is no winning? Should we continue screaming "We have the facts on our side!' Well, no... We are all fans of Gossip Girl. If you observe disdain for the show from an individual, then they are not really a fan of the show. We may want a democracy that allows people to have differing views, but at the end of the day we should also show mutual support as well. Long live Gossip Girl. Category:Blog posts